Report of the Human Rights Defender on the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism in Poland in 2013 1. Methodology In all the visited establishments, the National Preventive Mechanism operates based on the same methodology. The first stage is to establish the composition of the visiting group. According to OPCAT, experts of national preventive mechanisms should have the required capabilities and expertise. The visiting team usually consists of several persons, with one person performing the role of the group coordinator. Two persons, including the team coordinator responsible for drawing up the report from the visit, perform the inspection of the premises and buildings of the establishment, while others conduct individual conversations with prisoners. In order for groups to be interdisciplinary, the visits are also performed by experts in general medicine, psychiatrists and psychologists. They draft an expert opinion which is incorporated in the visit report. The duration of a visit depends on the size of the visited establishment and on the problems encountered on site. It usually lasts for one to three days. The visits of the National Preventive Mechanism have the following stages: •  A conversation with the management; •  Inspection of all rooms; •  Individual and group conversations with the detainees; •  Conversations with the personnel; •  Analysis of documents; •  Formulation of post-visit recommendations during the conversation summing up the visit, and receiving explanations from the management. If a prisoner reports an unlawful event, he/she has the opportunity to lodge an official complaint. Yet if the person does not consent to addressing the issue officially, the visitors consider the information as a  report to be investigated in a way that prevents identifying the source. If the unlawful event is confirmed, the members of the visiting team report their findings to the director of the visited establishment and the complainant remains anonymous if he/she does not file an official complaint. If the visitors are unable to confirm the complainant’s charges, these are reported during the summarising conversation as unverified reports, and it is the establishment director’s duty to investigate them. When the visit is completed, a report is drawn up which describes all the findings and conclusions, as well as recommendations for the body managing the visited establishment and for its supervisory bodies. If the establishment’s management does not agree with the recommendations, the NPM representatives request the supervisory bodies to issue their opinion and position on the matter. 23